成唯識論演祕 5.242

5.242

詳曰：若以令心平等三種而為其業，可如所責。靜住既非平等等三，如何難云以性為業？又，靜住即是不容染義，《對法》何殊獨責此論，由斯諸論，文雖少異，義理大同，幸不致惑。又，性顯業亦復何違？如第七八識思量、了別為性相故。若云心所無如是者，理亦不然。如此論中，忿以憤發而為其性，《對法》即以憤發為業，豈不性、業同憤發故，二論互舉。又，此明惱暴等為性，䖧螫為業，《五蘊論》云：發舉惡言尤䖧為性，亦是性、業二論互明，此何不許？由此觀之，論實非錯。

I examine [this] and say: If it took causing the mind to have the three kinds of equality as its activity, it could be censured as said. But since quiet abiding is not the three kinds of equality, how can one object that it takes essence as activity? Furthermore, quiet abiding is precisely the meaning of not admitting defilement; how does the Abhidharmasamuccaya-bhāṣya differ, such that one censures this treatise alone? Hence, although the texts of these treatises differ slightly, their principle and meaning are largely the same; one should fortunate not be confused by this. Furthermore, what contradiction is there in demonstrating activity through essence? Just as the seventh and eighth consciousnesses take mentation and cognition as their essential characteristics. If one says that mental factors do not have this, that principle is also not so. As in this treatise, wrath takes outburst as its essence, while the Abhidharmasamuccaya takes outburst as its activity; is it not because both essence and activity share outburst that the two treatises alternately cite it? Furthermore, this [treatise] explains vexation as taking violence and so forth as its essence and stinging as its activity, while the Pañcaskandhaka-śāstra says: uttering harsh speech with deep stinging is its essence; this too is the alternate explanation of essence and activity by the two treatises. Why should this not be accepted? Viewed from this, the treatise is indeed not mistaken.